Just about to give up - one more try

What’s the difference between null and nothingness? The null state (state of nothingness. Not 0 as 0 is something) and Absolute nothingness? Do neither exist? I’m surprised I haven’t got a clear answer yet. I got some replies but nothing that directly gets an answer.

Is it too hard to come up with an argument that distinguishes null and nothingness? - The null state cannot be said to be a ‘mental state’ as all mental states only exists only with a mind? All mental states end at death so calling the null state a ‘mental state’ is an impossibility to occur at death as all mental states are only possible with a mind? What about the ‘state’ following death? NO mental activity can exist there. Is that the Null state? 0 mental activity = state of nothingness: 0 entropy/0 chaos = state of nothingness (null state)

Any input is greatly valued. I’ve been talking about null and nothingness nonstop for almost 2 days now. So far I’ve just gotten back insight and constructive feedback (whether that was on my idea or plain out ‘I don’t get what you are saying’ or ‘that is very incoherent’) and stuff to that nature, i appreciate the honesty.

Nothing has been improperly defined, most people can’t even grasp nothing properly. Nothing is empty space, empty space exists it is an object, it is not nothing, what you mean is “empty” replace that word “nothing” with “empty”

I’d like to shoot whoever came up with that word, it’s the most vulgarly conceptualized piece of shit in the english vocabulary. Null should be absolute non-existence, i.e. you can’t borrow my null-car (non-existent car).

I prefer to use asbolute non-existence, instead of null. It makes it 100 times clearer.

see your point. So, describe your absolute non-existence and then tell me whetehr you would rather be in absolute non-existence or have a soul. (some cultures actually prefer nothingness) thats why i’m asking…

I prefer 0 chaos, pretty much a definition of nothingness/absolute nonexistence/null — but the only reason why I like it is because i have a point of reference - a ‘i-like-less-chaos’. If 0 chaos happened it would no longer be relative. In other words, I do not worship it in the Absolute. I like 0 chaos in a relative fashion. (less chaos in my life) Even if 0 chaos is absolute.


You can’t hide in deserted valleys, either, faust. They’ve been taken by terrorists.

Indeed the concepts of zero, nothing, infinity, and everything are EXTREMELY difficult concepts. Many of the greatest mathematicians of all time have been driven to insanity and/or suicide in the quest to understand them. In comparison to these great minds of history, we dorks haven’t a clue as to what zero, nothing, or infinity are.

Yeah you can…

The thought experiment - getting a non-existant-apple object, from a non-existent fridge.

We can do it using virtuals.

NOT apple, NOT fridge.

The apple and fridge are positive existent concepts, but the NOT in front of them negates their existence, therefore, they have absolutely no existence in the sense of how the are used, because you can’t use non-existent things. Now the concepts themselves we just as placeholders to make it easier to grasp.

Absolute nothing is simply absolute negation, you’re thinking about non-existence as if it was an existent that’s your fallacy. You’re trying to describe something that has no properties.

A absolute-non-existence is simply a function in truth statements:

Did you get the car from x? No I did not get the car from x, they DID NOT HAVE the car.

The “non exist” in that statement is the “did not have”, it is a function that only refers to itself.

maybe null and nothingness are both just words, originated by language, and therefore their only utility or meaning is in how they’re used, like any word. for example in c++ a null pointer points to 0 as opposed to a valid object. quite mundane. and nothingness is simply an oxymoron. no-thing denotes the absence of a thing, but ‘-ness’ denotes the quality/state/presence of something. how can no thing have a quality/state/presence?

I agree completely. Nice analysis. =D>

The “absolute nothingness” you’re talking about can’t exist. The core of the concept is resistent to the idea that it could possess being as a property. Asking “does nothing exist?” is like asking “are living things dead?” or “are squares round?”.

The “null state” you’re talking about is a concept that stands in for the absence of something. If I have food on my plate, then that food is something and it exists. After I’ve eating my food, it no longer exists (except as digested goo in my stomach - but there’s nothing on my plate). But this absence is not a “something” - it’s not a thing sitting on my plate - it’s a way of talking about the fact that no thing is on my plate.

Human beings have a tendency to “objectify” concepts - that is, to treat them as objects - and we like to do this (unconsciously) even to abstract concepts like the concept of nothingness (in both senses - “absolute” and “null”). This leads us to mistakes. For example, when we talk about the nothingness on my plate, if we’re not careful, we end up talking about it as though it were an actual thing that exists there. Then we get confused. We start asking questions like “Does it or does it not exist?”

Again, the state of nothingness that describes our minds after death is a concept that stands in for an absence. It represents the state of the world without our minds. That is, it’s a statement about an existing thing - the state of the world - as not containing something else, something that used to exist but no longer does.

Are you honestly asking a question, or are you taking a position? I think you’re question has been answered in several places. If you’re not getting it, that’s okay, question further, but if it’s a matter of your disagreeing, then that’s an official position (which seems to me to be that a sort of nothingness can “exist” - correct me if I’m wrong), and I’d be interested to see how you defend it.

What? Seriously? Who?

Thanks, but although I wanted to make a strong argument, for the sake of making people think, I don’t fully agree with what I said. For example, language can be used to try to point to concepts that are very independent of language, where the meaning of the sentence is beyond the normal use of is words. This is what the Buddhists do when they speak of “emptiness”, for example, or when they say, “The tao that can be spoken is not the true tao.” By the same token the inherent contradiction in ‘nothingness’ could be inherent for a purpose.

Dangerous Knowledge